Where are you getting your information? No where have I read that we would be asking people to get pregnant so that we can abort their babies for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. Let alone would “we” be paying for that. The SCOTUS has already ruled, years ago, that the government will not fund abortions. I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect you know damn well that this has never been suggested as a way to get stem cells, and you are just trying to be difficult by making this outrageous comment.

Most, if not all of the embryonic stem cells will (and do) come from frozen embryos that are sitting in freezers because they are not going to be used. They will eventually be destroyed after a certain amount of time if not used. What’s the difference between throwing a frozen embryo in an incinerator and thawing it out to harvest cells from it? If it’s going to be destroyed anyway, why not use it to help save another life. That seems like the most pro-life thing to do, doesn’t it???

We should not be paying for abortions to create stem cells or asking women to get pregnant and then destroy the child just for science. Hitler did something similar, called human life expendable in the name of science. I have heard you can take embyonic stem cells from umbillicle(Sp?) chords, a practice with which I see no ethical dilemmas.

I will say that while many of you may not be swayed by this, many people in Missouri are. The reason is that Kansas City and St. Louis have fairly large and modern and expensive research institutes, which are equipped to research and are currently researching stem cells. People have been reluctant to invest and commit to these institutions however, because of the threat of making this type of research a felony, which is what pro-life groups are pushing for. If the Missouri constitution was amended to protect this research, many investors would be willing to go full-steam ahead on this, which would possibly make Missouri one of the states with the most cutting edge stem cell research technology facilities in the nation. This means money and jobs for Missourians, which would bode well for the Missouri economy.

And here, ladies and gentlement, is where there is already a split between Republicans in this state. Many “fiscal” conservatives are all in favor of amending the constitution to protect stem cell research (because of the aforementioned reasons), while many “social” conservatives are very much against it because they are in to the pro-life thing. Most Dems love the fiscal benefits, and they feel that the benefits of stem cell research far outweigh the drawbacks, if they are even concerned about the pro-life issue at all.

So, there it is, and the current gov. is not wanting to take a side – basically because he is stuck between a rock and a hard place with his own party in Missouri. (I somewhat take issue with the motion that Missouri dems are “trying to divide repubs” in the state, as I believe that they are already divided, all on their own – although, this can obviously be exploited, if a certain party is smart enough to do so).

BTW – The proposed amendment, which will almost surely be on the November ballot would not expand stem cell research beyond what is already allowed. It would merely protect the status quo, and allow anything that is allowed under Federal Law. Also, reproductive human cloning (where whole people or half-people, half-horses could be produced) would NOT be allowed. ONLY therapeutic cloning (where we would be making cells to cure diseases and stuff) would be protected.

Here are some links to more information if you’re interested:

http://www.missouricures.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/national/12stemcell.html?ex=1299819600&en=072a8b637e423c74&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/24/AR2005122400745.html

Besides, turning the suffering of loved ones into political capital without becoming ghoulishly vulgar requires a kind of finesse I doubt the modern Democratic Party can manage.

The Democrats would be well-served to hire you Callimachus.

People like me with Parkinson’s Disease support ALL kinds of SCR, cures from which will not occur in our lifetimes, thanks to ignorance and religious opposition to cures.

There are several lines of research on this, you can read about some of them here, here, and here.

Also, adult stems cells have already been succesful in treating dozens of degenerative diseases, even spinal chord paralysis and heart disease. Embryonic stem cells have not been used to treat a single disease in humans as of yet.

Embryonic stem cells often form tumors, are rejected upon transplantation, or decay and become unstable after propagation.

I tend to side with Democrats (and Nancy Reagan) on this one, but it’s not going to be a vote-switcher for me. Incompetence in running the Iraq war, in energy policy, even pollution and climate change are more likely to switch me over, if I can be convinced someone on the other side can do better.

“Vote for me, I’ll put more money into stem-cell research” isn’t doing it.

Besides, turning the suffering of loved ones into political capital without becoming ghoulishly vulgar requires a kind of finesse I doubt the modern Democratic Party can manage.

There is actually a Deus-ex-Machina for all of this. While republicans appear anti-progress, and democrats appear anti-life, it is now moot because adult stem cells have now been proven to bring all the benefits that embryonic cells promise (they can give rise to all 3 cell-types), with none of the downfalls (such as tumor formation and tissue rejection). They are also cheaper to produce.

The more money spent on embryonic research as opposed to adult stem cells, the less progress in developing effective therapies for degenerative disease. That is the truly scientific answer to this debate.